"Ms Libertarian" > wrote in message 7.142...
> "pearl" > wrote :
>
> > "Ms Libertarian" > wrote in
> > message
> > . 97.142...
> >> dh@. wrote :
> >
> >> > From a grass raised dairy cow
> >> > people get thousands of dairy servings.
> >>
> >> Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
> >> Input grass and get meat and dairy products!
> >
> > '.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much
> > of the soil erosion in the United States,
>
> So is the growing of crops, ace. You grow things and it turns
> soil to food, it gets shipped off and someone somewhere else eats
> it and poops it out in a different place, then guess what. It
> turns back to soil. Whoa! Closed loop ecosystem.
Firstly, in the U.S, the total land area used for food crops
is about 13 million hectares. For livestock, it's more than
302 million hectares - about 272 million hectares pasture,
and about 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains.
Read on..
'Historically, soil surface cover from crop residue has been
known to reduce rainfall energy responsible for soil erosion.
The primary benefits of crop residues are reduction of soil
erosion, improvement of soil properties, and reduction of
soil surface sealing effect. Crop residue is increasingly being
used as a major tool to reduce the loss of one of our most
valuable natural resources, topsoil. Conservation practices
encourage the use residue as a protective blanket from rainfall
and to enrich soil structure by increased organic matter content.
...'
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/pub...O_115%3D166033
Emphasis added *:
'Restoring Soil Carbon Should Be Top Global Priority
Source: Ohio State University
6-10-4
COLUMBUS, Ohio (Newswise) - Restoring soil carbon levels
should be a top priority among the global community, according
to a viewpoint article in this week's issue of the journal Science.
The amount of carbon that can be restored in the world's
degraded agricultural soils will directly influence global food
security and climate change within our lifetime, said Rattan Lal,
author of the article and director of the carbon management
and sequestration center at Ohio State University.
Scientists estimate that, since the mechanization of agriculture
began a few hundred years ago, some 78 billion metric tons -
more than 171 trillion pounds - of carbon once trapped in the
soil have been lost to the atmosphere in the form of carbon
dioxide (CO2).
"Converting natural ecosystems to fields for crop production
and pastures depletes a soil's carbon content by as much as
75 percent," Lal said. "And the amount of carbon we emit into
the atmosphere each year from industrial activity is on the rise."
With too little carbon in the soil, crop production is inefficient.
Right now, the world's agricultural soils are alarmingly depleted
of carbon, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, south and central
Asia and the Caribbean and Andean regions, Lal said.
He calls for adopting "recommended management practices"
for increasing and keeping carbon in farmed soils. These
practices include no-till farming - ***leaving residue from the
previous year's crops on the field***; agroforestry - planting
trees or shrubs on or around cropland to enhance the quality
of the soil; planting cover crops, which protect the soil from
erosion during normal growing seasons; and using nutrients
such as manure, compost or biosolids to fertilize crops.
Evidence shows that following such practices greatly increases
and sustains crop yields.
Lal cited an 18-year experiment in Kenya: Farm fields managed
by regular farming practices - tilling the land, using no fertilizer,
leaving fields bare in the non-growing season - produced about
1 ton of maize and beans per hectare (a hectare is about the size
of two football fields). But fields treated with manure, planted
with cover crops and covered with mulch yielded six times that
amount.
"This is the type of quantum jump in crop yield needed at the
continental scale to ensure food security in Sub-Saharan Africa,"
said Lal, who is also a professor of natural resources. "Soil needs
enough carbon in order to hold water and nutrients and to grow
crops efficiently.
"But ***completely removing crop residue for animal fodder***
and fuel is the norm in many African and Asian countries," he
continued. "This drastically reduces soil carbon levels, and we
cannot achieve global food security without returning crop residues
and putting carbon back in soil. Both are necessary for improving
soil quality."
..
"Soil carbon sequestration is a natural, cost-effective and
environment-friendly process," he continued. "Once sequestered,
carbon remains in the soil as long as restorative land use, no-till
farming and other recommended management practices are
followed."
....'
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/505448/
Same applies for the U.S, and elsewhere. Note:
'This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides
evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic
farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming,
organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves
soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water
pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide
emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission
potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower,
and energy efficiency is usually higher.
...'
http://www.cosi.org.uk/web/sa/saweb....riefing_Sheets...
> > the ecologist
> > determined. On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss
> > averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are
> > eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare
> > per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely
> > overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is
> > being overgrazed. '
> > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
>
> So if the ranchers are smart, they'll stop that.
How do you propose that be done without substantially reducing the
herd? And do you think that losing 6 tons per hectare p/a is alright?
> > 'Livestock grazing has damaged approximately 80% of
> > stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States.
>
> Are you advocating not having anymore livestock? Kill them all?
Stop breeding them.
> > Although these areas compose only 0.5-1.0% of the overall
> > landscape, a disproportionately large percentage (70-80%)
> > of all desert, shrub, and grassland plants and animals depend
> > on them. The introduction of livestock into these areas
> > 100-200 years ago caused a disturbance with many ripple
> > effects.
>
> So did the introduction of people. Kill them too?
People were living in those areas over 200 years ago.
> It keeps coming back to homo sapiens hatred with you guys,
> doesn't it.
Where did that come from?
> > Livestock seek out water, succulent forage, and
> > shade in riparian areas, leading to trampling and overgrazing
> > of streambanks, soil erosion, loss of streambank stability,
> > declining water quality, and drier, hotter conditions. These
> > changes have reduced habitat for riparian plant species,
> > cold-water fish, and wildlife, thereby causing many native
> > species to decline in number or go locally extinct. Such
> > modifications can lead to large-scale changes in adjacent
> > and downstream ecosystems.
>
> Better get rid of all the mammals then.
There was no such problem with the native species.
> > .. recent studies clearly document that livestock continue
> > to degrade western streams and rivers, and that riparian
> > recovery is contingent upon total rest from grazing.
> > ..'
> > http://www.onda.org/library/papers/BelskyGrazing.pdf
> >
> > 'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third
> > relative to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining
> > is damaged or deteriorating. ..
>
> No agriculture either?
... Historically, the demand for grazing land is a major cause
of worldwide clearing of forest of most types. Currently,
livestock production, fuel wood gathering, lumbering, and
clearing for crops are denuding a conservatively estimated
40 million acres of the Earth's forestland each year. .. '
Half of all arable land is currently being used to grow feed
for livestock. Were that land used for food, there would be
no need to use forest land to grow any crops, food or feed.